AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Additional Commissioner. 2. The appellant is registered with the service tax department and has been providing "management, maintenance and repair services", "erection, commissioning or installation services" and "works contract service". The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Sikar Division sent to the Jaipur Commissionerate details of the service providers who had provided services to M/s Giral Lignite Thermal Power Project-Barmer [GLTPP ]. Among the service providers was the appellant who was asked by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sriganganagar for details of the services which it had rendered to GTLPP through several letters. Further, the appellant was also persuaded to provide copies of its Form-16 A and income ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is appeal. 5. On behalf of the appellant Ms. Surbhi Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (i) The entire demand in the show cause notice is hit by limitation as the demand has been issued after the expiry of one year and, therefore, it is time barred; (ii) In the case of services rendered to M/s Suratgarh Super Thermal Power Station [SSSTPS], the appellant had deposited the service tax even before the issue of the show cause notice; (iii) In respect of the services rendered to M/s Sigma Construction, Kolkata, these were rendered as a sub-contractor of M/s Sigma Construction Kolkata who had paid the service tax on the entire amount of services rendered to the service recipient.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived were found to be less than the amounts declared in the service tax returns. Therefore, there was suppression of value of taxable service and consequently, short payment of service tax as a result. (iii) The appeal may be dismissed and the impugned order may be upheld. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced from both the sides and perused the records. 8. It is undisputed that the appellant had received the amounts indicated in the Forms 16A and in the show cause notice. It is also undisputed that these amounts were received by the appellant for providing services and that such services were taxable. The only exception is the services rendered to M/s Adani Power, which was a unit within the SEZ and, therefore, acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was made before the original authority but it was not accepted for the reason that the exemption under Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009, which exempts services from payment of service tax was a conditional exemption, and certain conditions were not fulfilled. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held so. 13. We find that the notification exempting services rendered to a unit within the SEZ is actually redundant because section 26 (1)(e) of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [SEZ] exempts from service tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 on taxable services provided to a Developer or Unit in a SEZ. It reads as follows: " 26. Exemptions, drawbacks and concessions to every Developer and entrepreneur.- (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preneur; (e) exemption from service tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) on taxable services provided to a Developer or Unit to carry on the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone; (f) exemption from the securities transaction tax leviable under section 98 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004) in case the taxable securities transactions are entered into by a non-resident through the International Financial Services Centre; (g) exemption from the levy of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956) if such goods are meant to carry on the authorised operations by the Developer or entrepreneur. (2) The C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on any service and hence did not pay service tax. Therefore, we find that the appellant had suppressed the value of services rendered by it to M/s Instrumentation Limited, Kota with an intention to evade payment of service tax and, therefore, extended period of limitation was correctly invoked to raise demand of service tax. 18. The appellant does not dispute that it had rendered services to M/s GLTPP and that the services were taxable. It also does not dispute that it had not paid service tax. The only contention is that it paid service tax on whatever service was received by M/s GLTPP. The appellant was required to pay service tax on the value of services rendered by it, and since it had not done so, the differential service tax is cor....